Evaluation of the Early Years Programme of the Childhood Development Initiative

Transcription

1 CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE Evaluation of the Early Years Programme of the Childhood Development Initiative 2013 CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE

2

3 Evaluation of the Early Years Programme of the Childhood Development Initiative Nóirín Hayes, Iram Siraj-Blatchford, Siobhán Keegan and Eimear Goulding Centre for Social and Educational Research, Dublin Institute of Technology and Institute of Education, University of London 2013 CHILDHOOD DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE

4 The authors of this report are: Principal Investigators: Professor Nóirín Hayes (Centre for Social and Educational Research, Dublin Institute of Technology) and Professor Iram Siraj-Blatchford (Institute of Education, University of London); Lead Researcher: Siobhán Keegan (Centre for Social and Educational Research, Dublin Institute of Technology); and Research Assistant: Eimear Goulding (Centre for Social and Educational Research, Dublin Institute of Technology). Fieldworkers: Jean Kelly, Aisling Joyce, Janet O Farrell, Síle Murphy, Carla Beattie, Christine O Farrelly, Aisling Cusack, Tara Lehane, Maria McDermott, Aoife Hickey, Niamh O Connor, Emma Breen and Cliodhna O Donovan. How to cite this report Any citation of this report should use the following reference: Hayes, N., Siraj-Blatchford, I., Keegan, S. and Goulding, E. (2013) Evaluation of the Early Years Programme of the Childhood Development Initiative. Dublin: Childhood Development Initiative (CDI). Copyright Childhood Development Initiative, 2013 Tallaght West Childhood Development Initiative Ltd. St. Mark s Family and Youth Centre Cookstown Lane Fettercairn Tallaght Dublin 24 Tel: +353 (0) Fax: +353 (0) Web: Published by Childhood Development Initiative, Dublin ISBN: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission in writing of the copyright holder. For rights of translation or reproduction, applications should be made to the Strategy and Corporate Services Manager, Tallaght West Childhood Development Initiative Ltd. St. Mark s Family and Youth Centre, Cookstown Lane, Fettercairn, Tallaght, Dublin 24, Ireland.

5 Contents Minister s Foreword v CDI Response to the Evaluation of the Early Years Programme vi Acknowledgements viii List of Tables ix Glossary x Executive Summary 1 1. Introduction The CDI Early Years Programme Research sample 9 2. Literature Review Introduction Pre-school quality Parents Child outcomes in similar intervention studies Process evaluation Methodology of evaluation of Early Years Programme Research design Research questions Research instruments Data collection with the sample Consent Analysis techniques Quantitative findings Parent sample baseline characteristics Child sample baseline characteristics Child cognitive and language development findings Child social development findings (rated by Early Years practitioners/parents) Home-learning environment, parental stress and SDQ finding Findings on Early Years service environmental quality Findings on programme effects Discussion of child cognitive and language development findings 40

7 Minister s Foreword For several years now, the Government, most recently though my own Department, has demonstrated a serious and significant commitment to the area of prevention and early intervention. Since 2007, we have, in partnership with Atlantic Philanthropies, made a considerable investment in the Prevention and Early Intervention Programme, which constitutes the Childhood Development Initiative (CDI), youngballymun and Preparing for Life, Darndale. Specifically, my Department has introduced and maintained a universal free pre-school year, a move which is directly related to this commitment and recognises this period of children s lives as a key time for impacting positively on later trajectories. The publication of this report is timely, as the first National Early Years Strategy is being developed by my Department, working with the sector. The Strategy will support the many other important developments in this sector, which aim to improve quality and outcomes, such as the implementation of Síolta and Aistear in Early Years services. Collectively, we are developing a deeper understanding of what works for children and families and together we can maximise the positive experiences that a quality Early Years service can offer to children and their parents. This evaluation did not set out to establish whether or not supports prior to commencing school are of value: this is well established internationally. Rather, it explored the potential benefits of wrap-around supports, such as parental engagement, improved connections with health services and the impact of professional development and reflective practice. These are important considerations in further developing our common understanding of what works, as well as being relevant in the context of a public reform agenda which seeks to improve our effectiveness and efficiency. Investment in prevention and early intervention remains central to this Government, not only for the health and well-being of the nation, but also for its economic recovery. That is why I am determined that the new Child and Family Support Agency will have a strong focus on prevention and early intervention. This commitment was further manifest in the recent Budget announcement regarding the development of area-based responses to child poverty. I would expect that this new initiative will further develop and consolidate much of the learning from the Prevention and Early Intervention Programme. I congratulate all involved in completing what was undoubtedly a complex evaluation process and I welcome the valuable learning and findings within this report. Frances Fitzgerald, TD Minister for Children and Youth Affairs v

8 CDI Response to the Evaluation of the Early Years Programme On behalf of the Board of the Childhood Development Initiative (CDI), I am delighted to receive, endorse and welcome this report. CDI is one of three sites that constitute the Prevention and Early Intervention Programme (PEIP), a joint initiative of the Department of Children and Youth Affairs (DCYA) and The Atlantic Philanthropies. The three projects (CDI, Youngballymun and Preparing for Life) were set up with the objective of testing innovative ways of delivering services and early interventions for children and young people, including the wider family and community settings (DCYA, 2011). Based in Tallaght West, CDI is the result of the professionalism, passion and persistence of a group of 23 concerned individuals and organisations living and working in the community who had a vision of a better place for children. Through innovative partnerships, they brought together an approach which drew on both the science and the spirit of best practice in order to meet the identified needs of children and families. A partnership was agreed between the Government and The Atlantic Philanthropies, and the consortium s first piece of work was a needs analysis entitled How are Our Kids? (CDI, 2004). A number of priorities were agreed based on this research, one of which was to establish and incorporate CDI. This was completed in 2007 and following this a range of programmes have been designed, delivered and independently evaluated. CDI s programmes are the Doodle Den Literacy Programme for Senior Infant Children; the Mate-Tricks Pro-social Behaviour Programme for 9 and 10 year-olds; the Healthy Schools Programme; Early Intervention Speech and Language Therapy Service; Community Safety Initiative; Safe and Healthy Place Initiative; Restorative Practice; the Quality Enhancement Programme; and, of course, the Early Years Programme, which is the focus of this evaluation report. All CDI programmes are evidence-informed and incorporate elements for children, families and the practitioners working with them, and are delivered through existing services and structures. CDI has a core role in promoting quality, capacity and value for money. All elements of our work are rigorously and independently evaluated, and we are committed to sharing the learning and experiences from Tallaght West in order to inform and shape future policy, practice, training and curriculum development. This report is one strand in a comprehensive dissemination process aimed at doing just that. The evaluation of CDI s Early Years Programme was a complex process for a number of reasons. The rigour of the evaluation methodology, utilising a randomised controlled trial, brought its own challenges, such as how to engage all services in developing quality while avoiding contamination of the evaluation process. In addition, the decision to compare those children receiving the CDI service with children participating in other Early Years services, rather than children not receiving any service, was a brave one, based on CDI s commitment to ensuring that conclusions are meaningful and maximise the opportunity to improve our understanding of what works for children and families. Furthermore, given the many components of the service, extracting those elements that impacted positively on children and families in order to identify the core factors which constitute a high-quality service was problematic and this report is unable to definitively state which elements are most likely to improve outcomes. The evaluation does, however, draw some important conclusions regarding the centrality of practitioner supports, training and reflective practice. It identifies the benefits of and mechanisms for improved parental engagement, and it highlights factors that support the development of a quality learning environment, both in the family home and in the Early Years service all of which have been demonstrated as influencing outcomes for children. The value of this work has been recognised in the continued funding for the parent/carer facilitator role within the participating Early Years services, and CDI is delighted that the County Childcare Committee is now engaged in supporting this initiative, a partnership which offers real opportunity for replication and integration of this way of working. vi

9 There are many conclusions within this report that could, and should, influence policy, practice and professional training. CDI is committed to maximising the investment from the Department of Children and Youth Affairs and The Atlantic Philanthropies, and through a comprehensive dissemination plan, CDI will utilise this report, and those of our other seven evaluations, to support a better understanding of how to improve outcomes for children, families and communities. Joe Horan Chair CDI Board vii

10 Acknowledgements We would like to extend our appreciation to the Childhood Development Initiative, members of the Expert Advisory Committee and the Reflection Group for their assistance with this report. Special thanks to Gráinne Smyth, Tara Murphy and Sinéad McNally from the Childhood Development Initiative, who developed a close and collaborative working relationship with the research team over the course of the evaluation. We are particularly grateful to the research participants: children, parents, Early Years practitioners, parent/carer facilitators and managers from across the 17 participating Early Years services, who gave up their time to become involved. Thanks must also be extended to those who provided training on programme components, for their willingness to share information and learning with the evaluation team. We would like to acknowledge the support of our colleagues in the Centre for Social and Educational Research, the Department of Social Sciences, Dublin Institute of Technology, and in the Institute of Education, University of London. We would like to thank the evaluation teams from Queens University Belfast, the National University of Ireland, Galway, Trinity College, Dublin, and the National University of Ireland, Maynooth, for providing opportunities for shared learning and discussion at the regular evaluation team meetings. We reserve special thanks for the team of research fieldworkers: Jean Kelly, Aisling Joyce, Janet O Farrell, Síle Murphy, Carla Beattie, Christine O Farrelly, Aisling Cusack, Tara Lehane, Maria McDermott, Aoife Hickey, Niamh O Connor, Emma Breen and Cliodhna O Donovan. The research team would also like to acknowledge The Atlantic Philanthropies and the Department of Children and Youth Affairs whose generous support made this evaluation possible. viii

12 Glossary CDI Cohort Condition Control Intervention Childhood Development Initiative in Tallaght West There were two different cohorts or waves of participants in the research: Cohort 1 participants took part in the research from September 2008 until August Cohort 2 participants took part in the research from September 2009 until August Whether a service, child or parent was in the CDI programme delivery group or in a group that delivered Early Years service as normal. Services, Early Years practitioner, children or parent participants who were not involved in the CDI programme delivery and therefore could provide a point of comparison. Services, Early Years practitioner, children or parent participants who were involved in the CDI programme delivery. x

13 Executive Summary The Early Childhood Care and Education Programme of the Childhood Development Initiative is a 2-year programme targeted at children and their families in Tallaght West. The final report of the evaluation team reports on the baseline, mid-phase and end phase findings for the whole sample of children, parents and childcare services. Methodology The research was designed as a cluster randomised trial, an experimental method by which social units or clusters (in this case, Early Years services) were randomly allocated to intervention or control groups. The research team used the following sources of information: standardised child assessments taken over time; child social/behavioural profiles completed by Early Years service/primary staff and parents; parental interviews; quality rating scales; Early Years practitioner focus groups; documentary analysis; and observation. Researchers first assessed children at the beginning of Early Years service provision (baseline) when they were aged at least 2 years and 6 months. Assessments focused on children s cognitive and language attainment on a range of standardised instrument subscales. Children were rated on their social skills at this time by their parents and their key worker. Researchers returned to assess children just before the end of their 1st year of Early Years service provision (mid-phase) and just before the 2nd year of Early Years provision. Quality assessments were carried out in the Early Years services in the same time period as child assessments in order to allow for a linking of service quality and child outcome scores. Parents were interviewed twice, once at the time that their child entered Early Years services and once after 2 years (end of Early Years service provision). Early Years practitioners from the intervention group participated in a focus group, once at the end of each year. Other relevant personnel (such as CDI speech and language therapists, CDI staff and programme trainers) were interviewed and/or consulted to obtain information for the process evaluation. In addition, the evaluation team attended programme-related meetings as non-participant observers and analysed the documentation arising from the life of the Early Years Programme, such as minutes, progress reports and newsletters. Research questions The main research questions are outlined below and organised according to the relevant participant group: Children: Did (and to what extent did) participation in the CDI Early Years Programme result in better outcomes in terms of child development (cognitive, language and social) after 2 years of programme implementation as compared to the control group? Parents: Did parental participation in the CDI parental component result in better outcomes (parental stress, parent estimation of child social skills and behaviour, home-learning environment) as compared to the control group of parents? Early Years services: Did service participation in the implementation of the CDI Early Years Programme result in better outcomes in terms of environmental quality (curricular, process and structural) as compared to the control group? Process research questions The process evaluation sought to examine the process (the how ) of programme implementation under the categories utilisation, fidelity and organisation. 1

14 Evaluation of the Early Years Programme of the Childhood Development Initiative Key findings Sample There were no major differences between intervention and control groups at baseline (as measured by parent and child background variables, parent ratings of stress, home-learning environment, child cognitive and social skills, and Early Years service quality). This finding indicated that the randomisation at Early Years service level had been successful for the majority of variables. Programme effects There was no positive or negative programme effect on child cognitive and language end-phase outcome scores. There was a programme effect on the quality of activities being planned and implemented in intervention services. This means that intervention group services engaged significantly more often in music/movement, nature/science and mathematics activities than control services did. There was a programme effect on the overall curricular and planning quality over time and this had a medium effect size (in favour of the intervention group). This means that the range of topics that were targeted at promoting children s learning and development was significantly better in intervention services than in control services, and that intervention Early Years practitioners planned more than control service practitioners tended to. The more sessions of a parenting course that parents attended, the higher the home-learning environment, which indicates a positive effect of the intervention parenting course (Parents Plus Community Course) on the quality of the home-learning environment. This finding suggests that such changes in parenting behaviour in the home will lead to direct gains for children in the future, as was found in other studies (Melhuish et al, 2008 and 2010). Trends Children One year (and two years) of Early Years experience, for both control and intervention groups, was linked to improvements in child development outcomes on the British Ability Scales Children. All children who participated in Wave 2 of the evaluation did better on the subtests Rhyme and Block Building and Naming Vocabulary at the end of the research. This finding applied more to the Cohort 2 intervention group than to the Cohort 1 intervention group. Although there is no direct statistical support for the presence of different programme effects in Cohort 1 and 2 respectively, the trend suggests that, at the least, a different and more successful level of programme implementation took place in Cohort 2, when coupled with evidence from supporting process findings. At end phase, more intervention group children were classified positively for their conduct, peer relationships, pro-social behaviour and hyperactivity, which process findings suggest may be linked to the HighScope conflict resolution approach implemented by intervention Early Years practitioners. Fewer intervention children than control children were classified as having borderline or abnormal hyperactivity levels. 2

15 Executive Summary Early Years service environment quality Early Years practitioners in intervention services created a significantly better literacy environment by the end of the programme. In the control group, there was no change in the literacy environment created. By the end of the research, the literacy environment score for the intervention group was in the good range, while for the control group the literacy scores remained closer to minimal. In the control group, there was a significant reduction in caregiver sensitivity scores from baseline to end phase, whereas in the intervention group there was no significant change in scores across the same time period. This implies that practitioners in the intervention group maintained a similar level of sensitivity to children over time, while the control group practitioners tended to become slightly less sensitive over the same time period. Process findings Intervention Early Years practitioners identified the HighScope training they received as the most significant aspect of the CDI Early Years Programme in changing their understanding of, and approach to, educating and caring for young children. Cohort 2 intervention practitioners reported feeling more confident about HighScope delivery after one year than Cohort 1 practitioners did after one year, and were much more satisfied with the content, support and delivery of the HighScope training. Process findings indicate that programme implementation in Year 1 of both cohorts should be considered a bedding-in period since training was ongoing throughout the first year, although there was evidence of a smoother implementation and training process for Cohort 2 Early Years practitioners. The quantitative finding in relation to a Cohort 2 effect on certain outcome scores suggests that delays in training or lack of consistency in programme implementation between cohorts may partly explain the trend towards more positive outcomes found in the results for the Cohort 2 intervention group. Early Years practitioners welcomed training provided by the speech and language therapists and described how it had taught them to think about the importance of print-rich environments and the power of reading with children, as well as helping them to tune in to children and their speech and language needs in a deeper way. By training Early Years practitioners and offering an SLT service to Early Years children, children with speech and language needs were identified and treated at an earlier age than would be the case if they had to wait to visit a clinic-based therapist. In turn, this will help them to be ready to learn once in school and will have positive implications for their general social development and later life outcomes. Most parents engaged well with the parental component of the programme, which was universally regarded by practitioners to be due to the support provided by individual parent/carer facilitators. The Parents Plus Community Course, in particular, was identified as being well implemented and was well received by parents and practitioners alike. This is a testament to it being manualised and evidence-based, in addition to being supported by a well-trained and accessible mentor. Early Years practitioners displayed a keen awareness of the importance of manual fidelity across services and they worried that differences in individual service interpretation of roles, components and practice may have resulted in different implementation across services and a dilution of effects. Practitioners across all services reported that a clearer manual with checklists, timetables and clear and specific job/ role descriptions, coupled with clearer responses from CDI personnel (such as the Quality Specialist) would have made them feel more confident that they were implementing the programme as intended. 3

16 Evaluation of the Early Years Programme of the Childhood Development Initiative In addition to the need for clear roles and responsibilities, the process evaluation identified the value of having an accessible mentor for all manual components to enable focused practice. The implementation of Síolta in services was supported by key implementation drivers, which included a longer working week (37 hours); better staff ratios; interested, well-trained and invested Early Years practitioners; organised managers who took ownership of the process; and low staff turnover. Communities of Practice meetings were identified by Early Years practitioners as a support that informed their practice, helped them to reflect and gave them a sense of how manual implementation was progressing in other services. Intervention services tended to have fewer instances of very low child attendance when compared to control services, which provided support for the overall CDI programme model in promoting attendance. Intervention group parents reported similar levels of satisfaction with Early Years service provision as their control counterparts. However, they reported receiving extra help for themselves or their child twice as often as control group parents did. This extra help was also more diverse than the types of help reported in control group Early Years service and pointed to the success of the programme design in anticipating and meeting the needs of its client base. Conclusion The findings show modest gains for the CDI Early Years Programme compared to the control group in a number of areas across different elements of the intervention. The strongest of these related to the quality of the curriculum and activities provided in intervention Early Years services. In terms of outcomes for children, gains were indicated in areas such as improved behaviour and social skills, child attendance, and better speech and language prognosis on entry to school. Moreover, the discovery of an indirect effect on parenting with the quality of the home-learning environment being positively associated with the number of parent sessions attended is an indication that intervention children and their siblings will likely benefit into the long term from a more positive home-learning environment. So, while the gains were small and more strongly observed at one level removed from the child (Early Years service- or parent-level), they were consistent in direction and indicated that, at the very least, the intervention improved the ability of those around the children to support their learning and development, and to interact meaningfully with children whether the setting was the home or the Early Years service. This is a powerful finding, with implications that stretch beyond the lives of intervention children. Process findings indicate that parents and Early Years practitioners were invested in sustaining the intervention by using the knowledge they gained into the long term, which will spread the benefits of the intervention as reported above to the lives of countless children into the future. 4

17 Chapter 1: Introduction 5

18 1.1 The CDI Early Years Programme A needs analysis report entitled How are Our Kids? (CDI, 2004) characterised the community of Tallaght West as having an over-representation of families living in poverty, many in lone-parent family households and often suffering from stress related to multiple disadvantage. As a result of this report, the Childhood Development Initiative (CDI) developed a 10-year strategy, which sought to act on three specific aims: to develop new services to support children and families; to encourage better integration of education, social care and health provision; to promote community change initiatives to improve the physical and social fabrics of the neighbourhoods in which children live, play and learn. The CDI Early Years Programme was just one programme developed in line with these aims. While explicitly representing the development of the first aim, it also offered opportunities to incorporate the other two as the newly developed services grew and established themselves within the community. Therefore, the CDI Early Years Programme was designed to support and target all families in Tallaght West, including those whose children may face barriers to educational achievement and well-being Programme content The programme was a 2-year Early Years education programme targeted at eligible children and their families in Tallaght West. The programme consisted of the following components: direct provision, over the course of 2 years, of a low-cost, flexible and broad-based curriculum operating within the principles of HighScope for 4 hours 15 minutes per day (cost to parents was 5 per week); minimum qualifications of FETAC Level 5 in childcare or equivalent for childcare workers and degree in childcare or equivalent for senior childcare workers; Early Years practitioners worked a 37-hour working week, allowing for non-contact planning and paperwork and home visit time; Practitioner:child ratio of 1:5, which is more favourable than the national comparison of 1:6 or higher for a similar service; observation of children s learning to enable practitioners to develop child-centred follow-up work plans in collaboration with parents during home visits; provision of nutritious food, physical play and recreation opportunities, as well as specialist primary healthcare support in the areas of dental hygiene and psychological assessment; access to a dedicated speech and language therapist to support children in their language development. For parents/carers, the programme focuses on the facilitation of parents /carers self-identified parenting needs and educational interests through work with a dedicated parent/carer facilitator (PCF) and through participation in a parent training course. Specifically, the parent component consisted of the following: provision of quality childcare and activities for parents based on their specific needs as a means of ameliorating the effects of social stressors on parents. This was to be aided by home visits on the part of the parent/carer facilitator and key Early Years practitioners, whose role it was to liaise and develop a relationship with parents and to provide information for parents on topics such as education, services or extra supports; provision of a parent education programme (Parents Plus Community Course) to support parents in the positive parenting of their children, with a focus on enhancing children s early learning and development. 6

19 Chapter 1: Introduction Randomisation Early Years services in Tallaght West applied to deliver the CDI Early Years Programme through the submission of an Expression of Interest form. Applicants were informed that delivery of the programme would be subject to a randomisation process 1, an experimental method whereby clusters or groups (in this case, Early Years services) are randomly allocated to intervention or control groups after being matched in pairs to balance important prognostic factors (Early Years practitioner qualifications; setting capacity; staff:child ratio) at baseline. The level of inference was not simply the unit of randomisation (i.e. the Early Years service), rather analysis focused both on service-level outcomes and child-level outcomes, with the child outcomes being used to make inferences about the service. Services that were assigned to the control condition delivered their Early Years programmes as usual, but practitioners in these services were offered the opportunity to receive the same, or equal, level of training as those in intervention services once programme evaluation was complete and some received funding towards the provision of extra child spaces Comparing and contrasting of intervention and control services Most control group Early Years services (75%) were operating an undifferentiated Early Years curriculum, i.e. they were not informed by any particular overarching curricular approach. In addition: none had the parent/carer facilitator (PCF) role; none had an on-site designated speech and language therapist; none had a parenting course or parent component; none had a guaranteed 2-year programme; none ran for the same length of time per day as the CDI programme (i.e. 4¼ hours) most children attended for 3 hours only per day; none had the qualifications requirements of CDI Early Years practitioners (i.e. minimum of FETAC Level 5 in childcare or equivalent for childcare worker and minimum of degree in childcare or equivalent for senior childcare worker); none (bar one) had the same staff:child ratios as CDI (i.e. 1:5); most charged considerably more for childcare than the 5 per week of the CDI programme; most Early Years practitioners had limited or no non-contact hours compared to CDI Early Years practitioners. Similarities Two control services out of 8 (n=10 children and n=11 children attending) reported that their Early Years curriculum was informed by the principles of HighScope. On observation of practice in these services, the main aspect of HighScope which was followed in practice was the Daily Routine, i.e. all followed a HighScope-type daily routine with small and large group time and had a key worker system. Key aspects, such as the Review element of the Plan-Do-Review component, were observed being inconsistently carried out in both services, in contrast to the more consistent practice observed in CDI Early Years services. There was also less emphasis on planning, record-keeping and report compilation than was observed in intervention Early Years services, which is also a key element of HighScope practice and implementation. 1 Allocation to intervention and control groups was completed by the funding agency Childhood Development Initiative (CDI) rather than by the research team. Matching criteria, such as service capacity and staff qualifications, were drawn up by CDI and services were matched accordingly into pairs. An independent candidate was identified by CDI and, at an appointed time and date, the candidate was responsible for the allocation of one service from each pair to the intervention condition, meaning that the matched service automatically belonged to the control condition from then on. This randomisation process took place in the CDI offices. 7

20 Evaluation of the Early Years Programme of the Childhood Development Initiative One of the 8 control services (10 children) had the same child:staff ratios as CDI intervention services and that was matched to an intervention service that was also run by the same umbrella organisation. This service also engaged in home visits from time to time with some parents (when necessary), but did not have a 4 visits per year requirement or a designated parent/carer facilitator to help with the visits, as was the case with intervention services. This service also operated a similar practitioner working week to that of CDI practitioners. Therefore, while it might be suggested that the similarities between these two control services and the CDI intervention service might, at face value, dilute the possibility of a treatment effect, it is the opinion of the evaluation team that this is unlikely to be the case given the small sample size involved (21 children and 2 services) and based on observation of the low level of similarities on a practice level. Nevertheless, the potential for these services to dilute a treatment effect was considered in the analysis (see Section 4.7.1) Intervention delivery In order to deliver the intervention, capacity-building within the Early Years services delivering the CDI Early Years Programme took place and a number of programme features were delivered in each intervention service. Intervention at Early Years practitioner level included training all intervention Early Years practitioners in the delivery of the HighScope curriculum and the Síolta framework (non-mandatory), having an extra Early Years practitioner to allow a ratio of 1:5 and having a designated staff member (not included in the ratio) to work with parents, called the parent/carer facilitator (PCF). The role of the PCF was designed to support learning between the home and Early Years environments and to create better working relationships between parents and children. It was required that senior childcare practitioners had a degree-level qualification or equivalent in early childhood care and education, while the childcare workers were required to have at least a FETAC Level 5 qualification in childcare or equivalent. In practice, practitioners operated a key worker system and worked a 37-hour week, which, being longer than typical childcare working weeks, allowed for curriculum and daily planning and individualised record-keeping. Early Years practitioners also engaged in home visits (target of 4 per year) with families of Early Years service children as a means of bridging the Early Years service home-learning gap. Children were referred to a designated intervention speech and language therapist (whose caseload consisted of intervention children only), as required, and the therapist held assessment and therapy sessions in the Early Years services. Children were also referred to psychological, primary health and social service professionals as necessary and these referral processes were supported by networks developed by the delivering agency, supported by CDI. In order to bridge the gap in provision in the summer months, children were offered a summer programme in the month of July, which was less formally structured and offered opportunities for parent involvement, day trips and sustained outdoor activities. Early Years practitioners also aimed to aid transition between school and Early Years services by liaising with receiving schools and preparing children for the transition to school Intervention stage The intervention was designed to be delivered in 2 waves, each lasting 2 years. Wave 1 began in September 2008 and ceased in August Wave 2 began in September 2009 and ceased in August Five services delivered the intervention Wave 1 and a further 4 new services delivered it in Wave 2. One service from the first wave opened an extra room with new Early Years practitioners for the second wave, therefore one service participated in both waves of intervention delivery and evaluation. CDI made decisions about the sustainability of the Wave 1 services prior to the end of the first programme in July Although funding was not available to CDI to continue to fund the whole manualised programme, it was decided that certain aspects of the programme would be kept on, namely a continuation of funding for the role of a dedicated speech and language therapist and also the role of one parent/carer facilitator per service. Moreover, a budget for continuous professional development was made available to all services in the intervention group and upon completion of the evaluation, a similar budget was offered to control services. 8

21 Chapter 1: Introduction 1.2 Research sample In the programme manual, it was stated that the CDI Early Years Programme targeted children aged 2 years 6 months to 4 years, living in the four communities of Tallaght West, and their parents/carers. Table 1.1: Number of children assessed at baseline, mid-phase and end-phase stages Baseline Mid-phase End phase Cohort 1 Intervention Control Late entry Intervention* Late entry Control** Cohort 2 Intervention Control Late entry Intervention 3 8 Late entry Control*** 2 Both cohorts Total * 1 child entered immediately preceding mid-phase assessment and 19 children entered at the beginning of Year 2. ** 7 children entered just before mid-phase assessment and 4 children entered at the beginning of Year 2. *** There were less late entry control children than intervention children because of the better consent response from intervention parents. Control staff were less invested in the research (as they were not receiving a new service) and were less available to follow up on consent forms and to encourage parents to participate Child numbers The number of children assessed at baseline was 311, which was over 100 less than the planned figure of 440. In Cohort 1, there was a follow-up rate of 91% of the original baseline sample (see Table 1.1). All late entry intervention children in Cohort 1 were assessed at the end-phase stage. The follow-up rate for the Cohort 1 control group is 72% and 90% for the late entry children. The total follow-up rate from baseline to end phase for original Cohort 2 children was 89% for the intervention group and 76% for the control group. The better follow-up rate in the intervention group compared to the control group is most likely due to the fact that intervention group children were signed up to a 2-year programme, therefore most were still attending the same Early Years service at the end-phase stage as they had been at the baseline stage. In the control group, children tended to move on to another school or Early Years service after one year (since they were not signed up to a 2-year programme), therefore being more dispersed at the end phase, they were harder to access for assessment purposes. 9

22

23 Chapter 2: Literature Review 11

24 2.1 Introduction Reviews of the research on the effectiveness of early childhood education and care (ECEC) have found a consistent link between ECEC and positive child outcomes in a wide range of areas, most commonly social and cognitive gains (Camilli et al, 2010; Gilliam and Zigler, 2000 and 2004; Gorey, 2001; Karoly et al, 2005). Sometimes these effects can persist into adult life (Campbell and Ramey, 1994; Lazar and Darlington, 1982; Schweinhart et al, 2005), resulting in reduced offending, school completion or lower rates of unemployment, among others. The consistency of findings in this area has been helped in no small part by the proliferation of research from planned experimental ECEC interventions with children at risk of experiencing multiple disadvantage. Studies have shown that there is a significant gap in cognitive ability and school attainment between children from low-income families and their more wealthy peers at pre-school age (Brooks- Gun and Duncan, 1997; Duncan et al, 1994; Halle et al, 2009; Lee and Burkham, 2002; Smith et al, 1997). An analysis of the US Department of Education s Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Cohort (ECLS-K) by Lee and Burkham (2002) indicated that the average cognitive scores of children in the highest socio-economic status (SES) group were 60% higher than the scores of the lowest SES group before they started kindergarten (aged 5). A study by Halle et al (2009) found that disparities in child outcomes on cognitive development, social-emotional development and general health are evident at 9 months of age and this gap has grown by the time they reach 2 years. The fact that meaningful differences could be detected at such an early age lead the authors to emphasize the importance of intervening early in the disadvantaged child s life to tackle these disparities. The strongest evidence for the effectiveness of ECEC comes from research on these intervention programmes, which are likely to be scientifically rigorous as a result of randomisation of children or settings to intervention or control groups (Anderson et al, 2003; Karoly et al, 1998). This has lead to a general consensus that those programmes that provide intensive, sustained, high-quality early childhood education and care have consistently found positive effects on cognitive and language development, early learning and school readiness and achievement (Barnett, 1995; Brooks-Gunn et al, 1994; Burchinal et al, 1997; Feagans et al, 1995; Lamb, 1998; Ramey and Ramey, 1998; Roberts et al, 1989). Moreover, these effects are usually strongest for children from families who experience multiple stressors or disadvantages (Shonkoff and Phillips, 2001). Research in the area has developed to the extent that it is now possible to identify, with some conclusiveness, the aspects of high-quality early childhood education and care that are associated with positive child outcomes and also exactly what these individual outcomes are. However, there has also been an accumulation of knowledge from non-experimental and large-scale studies (NICHD-ECCRN 2001, 2002, 2004a and 2004b; Sylva et al, 2004 and 2008; Wylie, 2004) examining childcare quality in a more general sense, which adds to the evidence of intervention/experimental designs. Effective early education is now generally considered to rely on a marriage of interrelated, but discrete key elements, which will now be examined in turn to establish what research has highlighted in these areas and how this may have relevance for the evaluation of the CDI Early Years Programme in Tallaght West. 2.2 Pre-school quality In the field of ECEC research, high-quality ECEC is widely held to have positive effects on child outcomes, while low-quality childcare is linked to negative child outcomes (Peisner-Feinberg and Burchinal, 1997; Peisner-Feinberg et al, 2000; NICHD, 2005). Moreover, some research suggests that children at risk for multiple disadvantage may actually benefit more from high-quality childcare than their better-off peers (Lamb, 1998; Loeb et al, 2007). It is useful when considering questions of pre-school quality to have a systematic means of assessing and conceptualising quality. The observational rating scales ECERS-R (Harms et al, 1998) and a supplementary extension rating scale called the ECERS-E (Sylva et al, 2006) offer a way to capture pre-school quality in concrete terms so it may be compared across time, settings and even countries. The ECERS-R focuses primarily on the structural and process elements of quality and has been used extensively by other researchers (Burchinal et al, 2002; De Kruif et al, 2000; Gilliam, 2000; Jaeger and Funk, 2001; Phillipsen et al, 1997; Sylva et al, 2006; Whitebook et al, 1989). The ECERS-E was developed by Sylva et al (2006) in response to what they saw as the insufficiently cognitive content of the ECERS-R in its assessment of play-based learning environments. The ECERS-E was designed to be more sensitive to important pedagogical processes conducive to children s intellectual and social progress in an English curricular context and also offered a means of assessing pre-school practice aimed at cultural and intellectual diversity. In a large-scale study with 141 pre-school centres, Sylva et al (2006) found that there was a significant and moderately strong relationship between the ECERS-E overall score and children s cognitive development, which not only provides a link between curricular quality and child cognitive outcomes but also 12

25 Chapter 2: Literature Review indicates that the ECERS-E is an instrument that can predict academic achievement. In the same study, the ECERS-R was found to be more related to social-behavioural development than to cognitive progress in the pre-school period, which means that the ECERS-R and ECERS-E capture different, but complementary aspects of quality relating to different aspects of child development and as such can be used in conjunction with each other to provide a fuller picture of environmental quality, which may then be linked to child outcomes. Findings from Siraj-Blatchford s (2004) Researching Effective Pedagogy in the Early Years (REPEY) study indicate that in centres scoring high on the ECERS-E, staff engaged in pedagogical practices that included more sustained shared thinking and more direct teaching, such as questioning or modelling. In high-scoring centres, children were also observed participating in more activities associated with early reading, emergent writing and active listening. Children in centres assessed as adequate spent more time in activities associated with the physical development and creative curriculum. Thus the ECERS-E gives higher scores to pedagogical practices and activities where staff take a more active role in children s learning, including scaffolding young children s play, especially in the communication and literacy domains of the curriculum. Staff and pedagogy Research has found that higher levels of staff training and education are positively linked to positive child outcomes (Burchinal et al, 1996; Burchinal et al, 2000; Sammons et al, 2002; Sylva et al, 2004). Burchinal et al (2000) found that girls in classrooms with a lead teacher who had more years of education showed larger gains in receptive and expressive language over time, while the EPPE study team (Sammons et al, 2004b) found that the percentage of time qualified staff spent interacting with children was related to pre-reading progress at entry to school. Research has found that better educated staff has a pedagogical approach (incorporating specific characteristics) that promotes better outcomes for children (Marcon, 2002; IEA Pre-primary Project: Montie et al, 2006; REPEY: Siraj-Blatchford, 2004; Siraj-Blatchford and Sylva, 2004). The REPEY study found that settings with longer serving staff (over 3 years), who supported less qualified staff to provide a mix of staff-initiated group work and child-initiated play, had the most positive effect on children s social, cognitive and dispositional outcomes. Similarly, Montie et al (2006) found that children in settings where there was a greater proportion of free choice activities offered, adult child interaction was positively associated with age-7 cognitive outcomes, while in settings where practice was predominantly adult-led, adult child interaction was negatively associated with age-7 cognitive outcomes. The REPEY team found that in order for adults to provide effective learning and play opportunities for children, it is necessary that they have knowledge and understanding of how children learn. Moreover, these adults must have an awareness of the individuality of children and provide learning and play opportunities that are differentiated according to the child s needs, which has also been found in other studies (Flynn, 2007; Smyth, 2006). Smyth (2006) identified strategies to help children from asylum-seeking families to access the curriculum, which included staff allowing children to make choices and direct their own learning, and children being supported to develop their knowledge through creativity. In the REPEY study, it was found that some adults more than others were likely to provide adult child interactions that involved sustained shared thinking and open-ended questioning, which allow for the extension of children s thinking. Siraj-Blatchford (2009) defines sustained shared thinking (SST) as an effective pedagogic interaction, where two or more individuals (adults or children) work together in an intellectual way to solve a problem, clarify a concept, evaluate activities or extend a narrative. Evidence suggests that the more successful settings were at providing the elements of pedagogic practice identified in the REPEY research, the greater the positive effect on the children s cognitive progress. Many of the REPEY settings were interested in a variety of curricula models, including the HighScope curriculum, which is the model curriculum being implemented by CDI programme services. This model includes many of the aspects of high-quality settings as identified in the REPEY study, including staff knowledge of how children learn (Key Developmental Indicators, small and large groups and child free choice), a behaviour policy that allows for staff to support children in rationalising their conflicts (6 steps to conflict resolution) and planning for individual child need (through the use of daily anecdotes, small and large group time and free play). 13

The Effects of Early Education on Children in Poverty Anna D. Johnson Doctor of Education Student Developmental Psychology Department of Human Development Teachers College, Columbia University Introduction

A brief review of approaches to oral language development Summary 2015 context Introduction Speech and language skills are fundamental to learning, development and communication and predict educational

Institute of Education, University of London Early Education, Nursery Schools Summit London 14 March 2014 Impact of nursery school quality and pedagogy on children s learning: Findings from project EPPE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY - 9 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Early childhood education and care (ECEC) can bring a wide range of benefits for children, parents and society at large. But the magnitude of the benefits is conditional

Promoting Child Development by Supporting Parents: Learning from the Evaluation of the Preparing for Life Home Visiting Programme The evaluation of the Preparing for Life programme demonstrated significant

Home and pre-school influences on early language and reading Evidence from the Effective Pre-school, Primary and Secondary Education (EPPSE) project Supporting early reading This Research Bite looks at:

224 Effective Pedagogy in Early Childhood Education: A Review of Literature and Implications for Practice in Infant Classes in Primary Schools in Ireland Elizabeth Dunphy Introduction Pedagogy may be defined

Additional Educational Needs and Inclusion Policy and Procedures Date of issue: February 2013 Review date: February 2014 This policy was discussed, agreed and formally accepted on 5 February 2013 by the

99 Parents perspectives: Children s use of technology in the Early Years Dr Susie Formby National Literacy Trust March 2014 About the National Literacy Trust We are a national charity dedicated to raising

A commitment from The Children s Plan Your child, your schools, our future: building a 21st century schools system SUMMARY Building a 21st century schools system Summary 1 Summary Chapter 1 Our ambition

The National Health Plan for Young Australians An action plan to protect and promote the health of children and young people Copyright 1997 ISBN 0 642 27200 X This work is copyright. It may be reproduced

Vernon Park Primary School Teaching and Learning Policy The school s approach to teaching and learning is based upon the school vision: At Vernon Park Primary School we aim to provide all children, parents,

KidsMatter Early Childhood Connecting with the Early Childhood Education and Care National Quality Framework KidsMatter Early Childhood KidsMatter Early Childhood Mental Health Initiative has been developed

Some Text Here Productivity Agenda Working Group Education, Skills, Training and Early Childhood Development August 2008 A national quality framework for early childhood education and care A discussion

The Development of Early Years Services in Ireland Jim Breslin Secretary General Department of Children and Youth Affairs, Ireland Models of Early Childhood Services Conference Montreal 6 June 2012 Overview

A NEW DIRECTION FOR SUCCESS Adapting Our Schools to the Needs of All Students PLAN OF ACTION FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION Québec Ministère de l'éducation Adapting Our Schools to the Needs of All Students A NEW

UNIVERSITY ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING SOUTH BANK Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) Policy This Policy will be rewritten in September 2014, in light of the new legislation and as part of the

9 Larry Schweinhart is an early childhood program researcher and speaker throughout the United States and in other countries. He has conducted research at the High/Scope Educational Research Foundation

Early childhood education and care Introduction This policy brief provides an overview of the national policy and advocacy priorities on early childhood education and care. These include: access to services

Pedagogy in early childhood education and care (ECEC): an international comparative study of approaches and policies Research brief July 2015 Stephanie Wall, consultant Ineke Litjens, OECD Miho Taguma,

A Three- Pronged Approach to Early Intervention Speech and Language Therapy Delivery in the Community Gráinne Smith, Childhood Development Initiative Dr. Sinéad McNally, Childhood Development Initiative

Encouraging Quality in Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) RESEARCH BRIEF: QUALIFICATIONS, EDUCATION AND PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT MATTER What are qualifications, education and professional development

Save our Schools A Vision for 2020: Achieve Equity in Education A Contribution to Public Discussion of the 2020 Summit Ideas 1. The priority is to improve equity in education Education is central to the

síolta The National Quality Framework for Early Childhood Education Research Digest Standard 7 Curriculum Encouraging each child s holistic development and learning requires the implementation of a verifiable,

November 2004 The Effective Provision of Pre-School Education (EPPE) Project: Final Report A Longitudinal Study Funded by the DfES 1997-2004 The Effective Provision of Pre-School Education [EPPE] Project

Dulwich College Seoul Learning Support & Special Educational Needs (SEN) in the Primary School Ethos and Policy points Dulwich College Seoul (DCSL) believes that every student attending DCSL has the right

Getting it right for every child: Where are we now? A report on the readiness of the education system to fully implement Getting it right for every child Contents Page Introduction 1 Where are we now with

Questions Which kinds of special educational needs are provided for and what are the school s admission arrangements for pupils with SEN or disabilities? TRUMPS GREEN INFANT SCHOOL SEN Information report

West Sussex Alternative Provision College and The (Arrangements made to support children and young people with Special Educational Needs or Disabilities) FROM THE PARENT CARER S POINT OF VIEW: 1. How does

Developing the workforce in the early childhood care and education sector Consultation document Copyright Minister for Education and Science, 2009 Department of Education and Science Marlborough Street

RESEARCH Researching Effective Pedagogy in the Early Years Iram Siraj-Blatchford*, Kathy Sylva, Stella Muttock*, Rose Gilden, Danny Bell *Institute of Education University of London Department of Educational

School Focused Youth Service Supporting the engagement and re-engagement of at risk young people in learning Guidelines 2013 2015 Published by the Communications Division for Student Inclusion and Engagement

Early Childhood Australia and Early Childhood Intervention Australia Position statement on the inclusion of children with a disability in early childhood education and care Overview This joint position

Master of Science in Early Childhood Education Singapore, 2005 2006 Offered by RTRC Asia in Collaboration with Wheelock College s Center for International Education, Leadership, and Innovation Background

January 2015 Special Educational Needs Report/ Local Offer How will school / college staff support my child? Peacehaven Community School (PCS) is an inclusive school with a strong commitment to meeting

Teachers Standards (Early Years) From September 2013 July 2013 Preamble Early Years Teachers make the education and care of babies and children their first concern. They are accountable for achieving the

Looked after children good practice in schools This is a short report based on a small-scale survey of good practice in schools in relation to looked after children. It does not cover all aspects of looked

Early Years as Preparation for Life: Lessons from research Edward Melhuish University of London & University of Oxford e.melhuish@bbk.ac.uk Nordic Day, 2012 Social & economic context By 2050 the EU working

Ludlow Junior Community Academy Local Offer for Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) Ludlow Junior is a mainstream school and at Ludlow we believe that the aims of the educational process are

YOUNG FIVES PROGRAM THREE-YEAR SINGLE PLAN FOR STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT 2009-2012 Palo Alto Unified School District DISTRICT GOAL: Create an exceptional learning environment that engages, challenges, and supports

National Literacy Programme National Literacy Programme Audience Lead members for education, regional consortia, local authority directors of education, local authority advisers, headteachers and schools

SCHOOL SUCCESS School Completion/Academic Achievement- Outcomes of Early Childhood Education Anne B. Smith, PhD Children's Issues Centre, New Zealand May 2014,, Rev. ed. Introduction How does early childhood

Special Educational Needs Policy including other Vulnerable Groups The Education Act 1996 says that a child has special educational needs (SEN) if they have a learning difficulty which calls for special

POLICY FOR THOSE STUDENTS WITH SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS OR LEARNING DIFFICULTIES OR DISABILITIES Rooted in Christ and Catholic tradition and under the guidance of its patron, St Edmund s aims to realise

III. FREE APPROPRIATE PUBLIC EDUCATION (FAPE) Understanding what the law requires in terms of providing a free appropriate public education to students with disabilities is central to understanding the

Guide to the National Safety and Quality Health Service Standards for health service organisation boards April 2015 ISBN Print: 978-1-925224-10-8 Electronic: 978-1-925224-11-5 Suggested citation: Australian

I. Program Administrator Definition The program administrator is the individual responsible for planning, implementing, and evaluating a child care, preschool or kindergarten program. The role of the administrator

Introduction For The Connection Lab at McGill University, a major goal is to develop partnerships with schools, families, and other organizations for the benefit of students. The purpose of this document

Early Years Educator (Level 3): Qualifications Criteria July 2013 Context The criteria lay out the minimum requirements for a high quality Early Years Educator qualification. It is the role of the National

Early Bird Catches the Worm: The Causal Impact of Pre-school Participation and Teacher Qualifications on Year 3 NAPLAN Outcomes This research looks at the causal impact of attendance at pre-school i in

Services for children and young people in North Ayrshire 28 October 2013 Report of a pilot joint inspection Contents 1. Introduction 1 2. Background 1 3. The Community Planning Partnership area 2 4. Particular

PRESERVICE PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS FOR TEACHERS (graduate level): March 2009 INTRODUCTION The Professional Standards for Queensland Teachers underpin all stages of teachers professional learning throughout

Opportunities for All Supporting all young people to participate in post-16 learning, training or work SUPPORTING IMPLEMENTATION Context The Scottish Government recognises the disproportionate impact that

Practical strategies to support the whole-school development of AfL with APP 1 of 11 The National Strategies Primary Practical strategies to support the whole-school development of AfL with APP This document

PRODUCTIVITY COMMISSION DRAFT REPORT ON CHILDCARE AND EARLY CHILDHOOD LEARNING VICTORIAN GOVERNMENT SUBMISSION 1. INTRODUCTION Victoria welcomes the opportunity to respond to the draft report of the Productivity

Success for every learner Special education working group report May 2015 1 2 Success for every learner Making education inclusive improves outcomes for all children and young people 1 Inclusive education

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, SOCIAL SERVICES AND PUBLIC SAFETY ACCESS TO THE SOCIAL WORK DEGREE FOR RELEVANT GRADUATES Glenthorne House 20 Henbury Road BRISTOL BS9 3HJ 0117 959 3687 director@jmc1.org Contents

Quality Standards All children will learn, grow and develop to realize their full potential. Vision > > All children will learn, grow and develop to realize their full potential. Mission > > To provide

RESEARCH Evaluation of Increased Flexibility for 14 to 16 Year Olds Programme: The Second Year Sarah Golden, Lisa O Donnell and Peter Rudd National Foundation for Educational Research Research Report RR609

SPECIAL EDUCATIONAL NEEDS POLICY COACHFORD COLLEGE I Mission Statement of School Our school Mission Statement promotes the ethos of inclusion which informs our policy and provision for students with S.E.N.

TEXAS RISING STAR WEBINAR SERIES: CURRICULUM AND EARLY LEARNING GUIDELINES RECORDED OCTOBER 29, 2015 NOTES The topics that will be addressed during these webinars include: 1. The General Overview: Curriculum

Choosing a School A Guide For Parents and Guardians of Children and Young People with Special Educational Needs Choosing a School A Guide For Parents and Guardians of Children and Young People with Special